Jump to content
 

Coupling confusion


Recommended Posts

I am sure these questions have been asked a hundred times before, but having spent some time using the search facility, I am none the wiser. 

I have recently returned to the hobby, my last (unfinished) layout was dismantled and sold off then I moved back to the UK from Finland. Seven years later, the bug has bitten again and I am accumulating various bits and pieces for a simple 4 ft shunting layout in OO. 

My problem is the couplings - I have a Heljen 1370 GWR pannier tank engine, various old second hand Bachman wagons, and my latest acquisition, a GWR brake van from Oxford Rail. The Bachman wagons all have the old style big ugly couplings, but they do couple together easily, which is a plus. The Heljen and Oxford rail stock have small tension locks couplings in NEM sockets.

I had assumed that with NEM being a standard, these wold be the same, but I cannot couple the engine to the brake van as despite both being modern NEM couplings, they are at different heights. There is a step in the loco's coupling, whereas the van has a straight coupling. The couplings are not interchangeable as the 'tails' that fits into the NEM pockets are of different lengths (7.4mm for the loco and 4.9mm for the brake van - both as close as my eyes can manage with a standard vernier calliper - my electronic one needs a new battery!).  I have spent several hours today trying to find a set of standards for 4mm NEM sockets, and though I found plenty that gave height above the rails, none offered any idea of a standard length for the tails or sockets.

I would like to standardise on couplings so that all the rolling stock is interchangeable, but have no idea which is standard. I have been thinking of using Kadee rulings as they seem well-liked, but not sure where to start, despite have waded through a dozen or more pages here. 
My previous layout used Spratt & Winkle couplings, and I still have a few etched brass sheets of the hooks & counterbalance, but they are are fiddly to fit to the wagons, etc. - I remember cutting all sort of extraneous material off my locos and wagons before. I would prefer a simple and reliable coupling that will work on all my current and unknown future rilling stock - any suggestions?

I am including a picture of the NEM couplings from the brake van and loco.

 

IMG_1930.jpeg

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The NEM couplings can have the end cut off and glued into the pocket . You can buy a NEM fitting from Parkside/Peco in which the NEM pocket will fit  on the Bachmanns with the old style coupling. You can also buy straight and stepped couplings. Bachmann and Hornby sell them in packs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Manufacturers claim that all tension lock couplings are standard and are compatible with each other, which in theory they are, and that they can operate successfully with setrack curves and geometry.  Yeah, right, and this time next year, we'll all be millionaires, Rodney...

 

My story is not a million miles from yours, though I have never been to the land of the midnight sun.  I came back to the hobby 4 years ago after a 30 year hiatus, with some of the stock from the earlier period that had accompanied me from flat to flat, Mainline, Airfix, and some Lima.  All had had the couplings cut off and replaced with Smiths scale instanters or screws.

 

First upset was that my eyesight and hand/eye co-ordination had deteriorated, and I could no longer manage the couplings.  My locos all either failed or were clearly on borrowed time, and not long after the layout was in a condition to run trains, some serious rethinking had to be done.  If you are really bored or have no life, the story is told on my layout thread, 'South Wales Valleys in the 1950s'.

 

I decided to equip my stock with tension lock couplings, as they are easily available, and to standardise on NEM.  I rejected Kaydees and the likes of Spratt/Winkles as requiring magnets, and I wanted to be able to prototypically uncouple or couple my stock anywhere on the layout by hand.  I will now incur the wrath of Kaydee users, not for the first time, by saying that I have never, ever, seen a Kaydee equipped layout where the shunting didn't involve unrealistic shuffling backwards and forwards, and the same goes for S & W. 

 

I made a serious initial error that cost me a lot of time and faffing about in assuming that the couplings having to be the same bar height meant that they had to be the same distance below the wagon floor.  They need to be the same height above the rail, dead centre, dead level, and dead square to the end of the vehicle.  The couplings need to project a standard distance beyond the buffers.  Mounting them in the NEM dovetails means that there is no standard place to place the dovetails (available from Parkside) and an incorrect height for a dovetail can be compensated for by packing or trimming the mount, or using a cranked coupler, and it is next to impossible to fit a dovetail reliably to a bogie.

 

Now for the real fun.  NEM couplings are allegedly standard to NEM specifications, and come in 4 types, short and long straight and short and long cranked.  Cranked are stepped downward just ahead of the pocket.  But they aren't standard, even within the same manufacturer's range or ends of the same vehicle!  Hook profile, dropper length, bar profile, bar shape, and material all differ.  I have had to trim the dropper on many of my couplings because once I've got the bar the correct height the dropper fouls on crossings that I have taken very great care to lay flat.  

 

The bogie issue is nearly solved; a couple of ancient Airfix couplings survive on coach bogies but replacement with new stock and replacing bogies of older and kit stock with Stafford Road Works (Shapeways) 3D prints, which have dovetails printed in, are making inroads.  Eventually, I have reliable running in regard to couplings, and can uncouple anywhere with a home made shunting pole (stiff wire attached to torch).  For a shunting layout, a 'spade' type may work, but I found that I needed to get at couplings where platforms and loading docks made a broadside attack difficult and need to come in from overhead.  The trimmed droppers would probably negate the effectiveness of a spade anyway.

 

Standardise as much as you can, but you won't be able to do so completely.  I use Bachmann couplers, but any NEMs will do.  Avoid Dapol, nothing but trouble.  Remember that replacing wheels may have an effect on coupling bar height, and that secondhand bargains, especially locos, may prove problematic in this regard.  There is a cheat in that you can pull the coupler part way out of the pocket and glue it in that position to 'lengthen' it, but if it needs replacing it will need a new pocket as well.

 

Lay your track carefully and level, and make sure any changes in level are gradual, not that you've got much room for that in 4'!

 

Good luck.

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  I really hate these "tension Lock" couplers  I use them on the garden railway.   If you must use them you really need a coupling  height jig.  I use a block of wood of a suitable thickness, 8mm?  Placed it on the track with a coupling screwed to it.  start at an arbitrary height, set it to suit any old vehicle and then check which if any items of your stock couple to it.   Then adjust it until either a good few pieces of stock couple to it, or the latest Hornby or Oxford and when its at the optimum height use it as a test.  All your stock should now be adjusted to suit the jig so you have adjust all your stocks couplings so they couple to it, with loops dead level and both hooks engaged. 

If one is loop is higher then one vehicle will lift and potentially derail when towards the head of a long train, if only one hook engages then it will tend to pull the following vehicle sideways  It may well be that you choose the old Bachmann height, at least Bachmann seem to have a constant height, Hornby are all over the place.  To achieve this may mean carving the chassis around to take different couplings.  but the choice is yours,   I actually use Peco couplings inside as they are much more tolerant of vertical mis alignment.   If starting again I would look at the N gauge couplers for 00 gauge.   Kadee look good.  Its just ridiculous that there is no standard spec for the 00 couplers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DOGA have tried to have a standard but it is up to the manufactures if they follow it

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/couplings.htm

 

Kadee ( not Kaydee), while the shuffle is needed, is perfect for when you want to uncouple but cannot reach them - I have at least two locations that are 2-3 feet away from operators to be able to manually uncouple.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather use the Kadee or S&W than the tension locks, but it seems that even the NEM pockets aren't a lot of use as they are of different lengths, meaning I can't substitute one type of NEM compatible coupling for another.

 

 

Edited by DaveSmith
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DaveSmith said:

I'd rather use the Kadee or S&W than the tension locks, but it seems that even the NEM pockets aren't a lot is use as they are of different lengths, meaning I can't substitute one type of NEM compatible coupling for another.

 

 That is one thing that the NMRA in USA did was to sort out the coupling problem years ago

https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-2_2010.09.pdf

 

https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-22.pdf   in 1958 no less

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, NittenDormer said:

I was looking for marriage guidance.

A man finds a lamp and polishes it up and the genie pops up and grants him a single wish (the polishing job wasn't that good!).

 

'I would like a bridge to Ireland, so I can just drive over'.

The genie says 'That's too hard, pick something easier, I'm tired'.

The man says, 'I would like a standardised coupling for British RTR model railways, that everyone likes and is 100% reliable'.

Genie sighs and asks, 'What colour bridge, would you like'?

  • Like 4
  • Funny 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Sol said:

The Americans had the advantage of a standard prototype coupling with a standard mounting on a bogie; we have to cope with bogie and rigid framed vehicles of different lengths with different buffer lengths as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

One manufacturer decided that they could make a standard couling mount at 3 different heights.  I'm less sure about the tail lengths.

 I have a Dapol terrier that won't couple to some Lima coaches because the Lima hook rises up and hits the bunker.

 

 The Kadee shuffle is no different than the tension lock shuffle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kadee works fine for spot uncoupling. It's when you want the delayed action that the shuffle comes into play and wo betide any loco that stutters causing them to couple up again.

 

Andy

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be reiterated that the 'NEM' standardisation in this context solely applies to the dimensions and location of the coupler pocket system. The design of the coupler head - the functional working bit! - is not part of the standard. The RTR OO manufacturers have tested practically every way they can to deviate from this standard, take nothing on trust! Hornby have done best in my opinion, and after some early waywardness Bachmann have fallen into line: but past 'deviations' have not been systematically rectified. I have not sampled enough of other manufacturer's products to evaluate where they stand, but have seen sufficient examples of deviation to know that perfection has not been attained...

 

What I found by testing the Bachmann and Hornby miniature tension locks - which at the time were the only two such items available - was that these were incompatible if reliable operation was required. So I made the decision to standardise on one; given proper care in installation at consistent height this delivers reliable performance (my choice fell on Bachmann, simply because I had way more of their product).

 

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...I will now incur the wrath of Kaydee users...

Whatever that system is. The Kadee is easily the best commercial autocoupler system available that I have tried. Not perfect, but it performs, and the manufacturer cares enough for the customer's ability to secure that performance that a coupling gauge is sold with advice on the required setting and adjustment.

 

Now, be it noted, that there are clones of the Kadee coupler pattern. The most readily available in the UK is Bachmann's EZmate. According to experienced users of Kadee, this clone is not fully compatible with Kadee if reliability is required, and I take that opinion on trust, and don't mix them. My all EZmate train performs reliably, and my all Kadee coupled stock likewise. So the customer has to decide with this system, what to standardise on.

 

In short, be your own standards authority.

Incoming inspection on NEM coupler pocket placement, rectification as required.

Standardise on the manufacturer's coupler design(s) that you require.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, kevinlms said:

A man finds a lamp and polishes it up and the genie pops up and grants him a single wish (the polishing job wasn't that good!).

 

'I would like a bridge to Ireland, so I can just drive over'.

The genie says 'That's too hard, pick something easier, I'm tired'.

The man says, 'I would like a standardised coupling for British RTR model railways, that everyone likes and is 100% reliable'.

Genie sighs and asks, 'What colour bridge, would you like'?

 

Reminds me of a similar joke:

 

Deceased man at the pearly gates. St. Peter tells him he's a borderline case to enter heaven, and so must go back to earth and perform an impossible task. "Like what" asks the man.

St. Peter says "take this bucket and spade and collect every grain of sand on Blackpool beach", "but that's impossible".  "Well yes, of course" replies St. Peter.  "Give me another task  to perform" , pleads the man. "OK I would like you to standardised the coupling for British RTR model railways, that everyone likes and is 100% reliable".

Man says, "Give me that bucket and spade".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

In short, be your own standards authority.

Incoming inspection on NEM coupler pocket placement, rectification as required.

Standardise on the manufacturer's coupler design(s) that you require.

This is very good advice, but not immediately obvious to anyone who believes the 'party line' that all t/ls are compatible from immediate post Rovex Triang to current NEM.  And the variety of mounting methods needed for UK outline stock is a further problem.  If, like me, you have standardised on Bachmann NEMs in order to achieve uniformity of hook and bar profile, you still have to deal with 4 different types of coupling, admittedly with a standard pocket and dovetail fitting.

 

The compatibility myth dates back to the 70s, when after a period when Triang Hornby were the only volume RTR player in town, and Wrenn started fitting t/ls to their ex HD stuff because they were meeting sales resistance with the old HD plastic buckeyes.  Trix, not much more market share than Wrenn, persisted with Peco type stamped steel buckeyes.  Then along came Lima, Airfix, and Mainline, with a market to break into.  They rightly reasoned that the last thing anyone wanted was another coupling standard and adopted their own forms of t/ls.  Lima's was horrible in appearance even by t/l standards, and held the stock ridiculously far apart, Mainline's had a little spring because the plastic hook was too light, and Airfix made the best attempt at making the thing small and unobtrusive.  All had their own imcompatible mounting methods and were not interchangeable.  None were reliable coupled to stock with 'standard and compatible' t/ls of a different make.  But all were marketed as being 'fully compatible with Hornby', which at that time in the general public consciousness meant Hornby Dublo; everyone was playing this slightly mendacious game including Triang Hornby of course,  The new boys promoted their pancake motors as 'ring field' in the same vein.

 

We are living to an extent with the aftermath.  NEM is a noble attempt to impose order, an American device adapted for use here, but is to some extent defeated by UK outline modelling.  It may actually not be possible to devise a standard mounting for stock that varies between locomotive ponies, tenders, 4 and 6 wheelers, bogies of differing distances from the buffer beams (even in the same coach on my A31 auto trailers) and different lengths of buffer housings.  One cannot use scale couplings correctly mounted on the buffer beams with curves of much less than about 30 inch radius, and I'd recommend larger than that if one is to propel stock, especially auto trailers that spend half their time being propelled.  In any case some of us are too old and feeble to use scale couplings anyway, though it is beyond doubt that they are the best in appearance and reliability.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The compatibility myth dates back to the 70s, when after a period when Triang Hornby were the only volume RTR player in town, and Wrenn started fitting t/ls to their ex HD stuff because they were meeting sales resistance with the old HD plastic buckeyes.  Trix, not much more market share than Wrenn, persisted with Peco type stamped steel buckeyes.  Then along came Lima, Airfix, and Mainline, with a market to break into.  They rightly reasoned that the last thing anyone wanted was another coupling standard and adopted their own forms of t/ls.  Lima's was horrible in appearance even by t/l standards, and held the stock ridiculously far apart, Mainline's had a little spring because the plastic hook was too light, and Airfix made the best attempt at making the thing small and unobtrusive.  All had their own imcompatible mounting methods and were not interchangeable.  None were reliable coupled to stock with 'standard and compatible' t/ls of a different make.

My solution to that at the time in terms of freight stock was to where possible fit a coupling of a different type to either end of some wagons. Each wagon then had it own card on which the coupling types were identified by coloured dots. So making up a train consisted of shuffling the wagons about to get as many matching couplings as possible. On shunting locos T/H metal couplings were used if possible with the hook removed, Mainline models with the screw fitted coupling could easily take a T/H coupling and via versa T/H  / Hornby models with screw fitted could be fitted with he Mainline coupling. The  relatively thin metal  T/H loop accommodated any makes tension lock hook. Some cross make combinations worked fine but the one definitely to avoid was getting a Lima hook in an Airfix loop. Maybe something similar could be done today by someone persisting with tension locks, certainly swopability is simpler with the NEM mounts

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Might work for my mineral rakes, permanently coupled and permanently left on the layout, but other freight and NPCCS needs to be capable of coupling to and uncoupling from every other item of stock, and all locos need to capable of coupling to any vehicle.  My layout’s main function is operating, which means shunting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a bit of a fiddle around with the 3 locos I have upstairs (Heljen 1370, Bachman small prairie, and Bachman Jinty)  -all of which have NEM sockets, as does the Oxford Rail Toad van I bought a few days ago - and all are different!

 

I have ordered a few types of Kadee couplings and resigned myself to a few weeks of patient experimentation.

 

I suspect that the old tension locks on the second hand Bachman wagons I bought will be the easiest to convert!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, DaveSmith said:

I had a bit of a fiddle around with the 3 locos I have upstairs (Heljen 1370, Bachman small prairie, and Bachman Jinty)  -all of which have NEM sockets, as does the Oxford Rail Toad van I bought a few days ago - and all are different!

 

I have ordered a few types of Kadee couplings and resigned myself to a few weeks of patient experimentation.

 

I suspect that the old tension locks on the second hand Bachman wagons I bought will be the easiest to convert!

Depends on the mounting block, or if the block is moulded to the chassis as it was on many pre-NEM wagons.  Some of these are sizeable lumps of plastic that have to be cut away and the undersurface of the wagon made good before you fix (superglue is fine) a Parkside dovetail mounting block to accept the NEM pocket.  It's not just a matter of removing the old couplings.  My instinct would be to use the bar height of the highest couplings on your 3 locos as the standard height above the rail, in order to increase the chances of the droppers clearing crossing rails and barrow crossings without having to be trimmed, and the other couplings can be brought into line (literally!) with this by a combination of using straight or cranked NEM couplings and trimming or packing the Parkside mounts so that the coupling bar is at the correct height.

 

I've made a gauge out of expanded polystyrene to sit across the rails with grooves on the bottom to fit over the rails; very easy, just press it down on the rails.  All my coupling bars are fitted so that they rest on the top of this gauge, so they are perforce all the same height; the original standard height was set to a Bachmann 57xx pannier.  It is essential to get the bars all exactly the same height because although there is a degree of overlap in the bars, about 1mm though I've never measured it, there is a chance that the bars will override each other when propelling due to rough driving, uneven track, or changes in gradient.  If a heavy vehicle's bar bears down on a lighter one's, a derailment will result, and if the lighter vehicle's bar rides over a heavier one's, again, a derailment will result.  

 

This is possible not just when propelling, as the bars may contact each other while being hauled on very sharp curvature, but you'll be in trouble with buffer lock as well if this is the case.  GW auto trailers, with their very long buffer stocks and wide buffers, are particularly prone, and thus idea vehicles for testing purposes; if a pair of trailers can be propelled, anything can...

 

NEM pockets have a 'waggler' joining the pocket part to the triangular dovetail piece that fits into the mount, and this gives the entire coupler a degree of lateral play while 'springing' it back to the centre position.  These are quite delicate and need careful handling.  I referred earlier to Stafford Road 3D printed bogies, and these have integral pockets, so side play is limited to the radius from the bogie pivot point, but this seems to be sufficient in practice on my layout, where the sharpest curve is setrack no.3; there is also a Peco small to setrack no.4 reverse curve which can be negotiated by them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/11/2019 at 19:39, The Johnster said:

 I will now incur the wrath of Kaydee users, not for the first time, by saying that I have never, ever, seen a Kaydee equipped layout where the shunting didn't involve unrealistic shuffling backwards and forwards...

The main way you'll incur wrath is by spelling Kadee incorrectly :D as noted by Sol earlier.

The "Kadee Shuffle" is unavoidable if you use the delayed uncoupling facility, but some years ago I saw a group of older modellers stand in utter amazement in front of a American outline layout at a Show, as the loco 'magically' uncoupled from the train without the operator going anywhere near it. The layout had hidden under- track magnets which helped.

However as also mentioned in this thread, many of us who use them still dislike the shuffle, so use a skewer to uncouple where we want. Yes the 'hand of god' ruins the illusion - which is far more likely to incur the wrath of some than the shuffle!!

Unfortunately for modellers, whatever coupling methods the real railways use involves some sort of direct human intervention, and until we can have miniature robot shunters or switchmen on our layouts to do that, the coupling & uncoupling of our models will always be an unrealistic compromise, whatever coupler system we use.

 

On 26/11/2019 at 02:36, The Johnster said:

The Americans had the advantage of a standard prototype coupling with a standard mounting on a bogie; we have to cope with bogie and rigid framed vehicles of different lengths with different buffer lengths as well.

Sorry, Pedant Mode On; US prototype Buckeye couplers are mounted to the underframe, not the trucks.

Although models have been made in the past where the coupler is fixed to the truck (especially in N gauge), this is generally regarded as bad practise, and best avoided.

 

Re truck or bogie, we're getting into US-vs-UK terminology, a whole other minefield!! I do prefer the description 'truck' myself, as opposed to one very close to that used for the description of extraneous nostril matter... :bad:

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

.....NEM is a noble attempt to impose order, an American device adapted for use here, but is to some extent defeated by UK outline modelling......

 

Surely, NEM is a European (MOROP) standard, not American?

 

NEM 362

 

Normen europäischer Modelleisenbahnen (NEM)

 

 

x

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/11/2019 at 13:25, BR60103 said:

 The Kadee shuffle is no different than the tension lock shuffle.

 

 

and that is a valid point.... one has to back up the train to release tension on the T/L's anyway to uncouple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...